Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bing Webmaster Tools MCP

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP

by rafavillaplana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Performance by page

get_page_stats
Read-only

Analyze which pages drive Bing search traffic by retrieving clicks, impressions, CTR, and average position per URL for a verified site.

Instructions

Clicks, impressions, CTR and average position per URL of the site in Bing (top pages). By default rows are summed per URL over the period.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "siteUrl": "<siteUrl>"
    },
    "name": "get_page_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum rows to return (default 50, max 200). Prefer filters or aggregation over large limits
sortByNoSort order (default: clicks)
endDateNoEnd date, YYYY-MM-DD (optional)
siteUrlYesSite URL exactly as verified in Bing Webmaster Tools (e.g. https://example.com/). Call list_sites if unsure.
containsNoOnly rows whose query/URL contains this text (case-insensitive)
aggregateNotrue (default): one row per item summed over the period. false: one row per item per week
startDateNoStart date, YYYY-MM-DD (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only behavioral addition is the default aggregation semantics ('rows are summed per URL over the period'), which duplicates the schema's own description of the aggregate parameter; nothing is said about data freshness, quota/billing impact, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences that front-load the returned metrics before stating the default row granularity. Slight redundancy with the schema's aggregate parameter description keeps it from being a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and a moderate seven-parameter surface, the description does identify the four returned measures, which is the key missing piece. However, it omits reporting-period conventions (Bing's data lag), how position/CTR are expressed, and the relationship to the sibling query- and page-oriented tools, so it is adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (limit, sortBy, contains, aggregate, dates, siteUrl) are already documented with defaults, ranges and enums. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the concrete metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position), the entity (per URL), the surface (Bing), and the output shape ('top pages'). That is a specific verb+resource statement an agent can act on, though it never names the sibling tools it is distinct from (get_query_stats, get_pages_for_query).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list contains several near-identical tools (get_query_stats, get_pages_for_query, get_url_traffic_info) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. Usage is only weakly implied by the 'per URL / top pages' framing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools